Page No. 1 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022
Fair copy
IN THE COURT OF THE PRL. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE,
JOGULAMBA GADWAL.
Tuesday, this the 8 th day of April, 2025
Present: Sri K.Kusha Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge JogulambaGadwal
S.C.No.58 OF 2022
(On committal by the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Alampur by Committal Order dated 14-02-2022 in PRC.03/2021 in Crime No.158/2020 of Police Station, Alampur)
Name of : The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gadwal. Complainant
Name of accused : 1. Jinkala Kiran Kumar Reddy, S/o Gopal Reddy, age 31 years, occ; Software Engineer. Trinity Advance Software Labs, Ashoka Bhupal Complex, Begumpet, Hyderabad, R/o Koneru village.
2. Jinkala Gopal Reddy, S/o Late Hanmanth Reddy, age 55 years, occ; Agril, R/o Koneru village of Alampur Mandal.
3. Jinkala Sarojamma, W/o Gopal Reddy, age 52 years, occ; House wife, R/o Koneru village of Alampur Mandal.
4. Jinkala Arun Kumar Reddy. S/o Gopal Reddy, age 30 years, occ; Software Engineer, Hitech City, R/o Koneru village of Alampur Mandal.
Nature of Offence : Under sections 304-B and 498-A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
Finding of the Court : Found not guilty
Sentence / Order : In the result, accused No.1 to 4 are found not
Page No. 2 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022 guilty for the charged offences U/Ss.304-B, 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C. The bail bonds of the accused shall be stands discharged after expiry of appeal time. MO1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO3 pen drive shall be returned to the prosecution.
MO1 to 5 shall be returned to accused No.1 after expiry of appeal time.
Prosecution : Sri J.Vinoda Chary, Public Prosecutor. conducted by
Counsel for defence : Sri R.Hemavardhan Reddy, Counsel for the Accused.
This case coming on this day before me for final hearing in the presence of Sri J.Vinoda Chary, Additional Public Prosecutor, for the State and Sri R.Hemavardhan Reddy, Counsel for accused, upon perusal of the material papers on record and having stood over for consideration till this day, this court delivered the following:-
J U D G M E N T
1. The Sub-Divisional Police Officer, Gadwal has filed charge-sheet against the accused in Crime No.158 of 2020 for the offence punishable
U/Ss 304-B and 498-A of Indian Penal Code and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act.
2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that:
On 16-10-2020 at 08:00 hours, the defacto complainant Bonthala
Prasada Reddy lodged a complaint. He stated that he has two daughters and performed the marriage of his elder daughter Jinkala Sahithi with his villager Jinkala Kiran Kumar Reddy on 26-02-2016. At the time of marriage, he gave 50 tulas of gold and Rs.10 lakh in cash as dowry. Later, further dowry was demanded. He agreed to provide more after his younger daughter’s marriage.
Page No. 3 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022
i) The couple lived happily for two years and had a son, Charvik
Reddy, now aged 3½ years. After that, her in-laws Gopal Reddy,
Sarojamma, husband Kiran Kumar Reddy, and brother-in-law Arun Kumar
Reddy began harassing her to register 10-00 acres of land in her husband’s name.
ii) Unable to bear the harassment, she informed her father. A panchayat was held at his house, attended by Satyanarayana Reddy (paternal uncle), Arunamma (sister), and cousins P. Bhasker Reddy and S.
Govinda Reddy. They advised to divide the property equally between his daughters and told his son-in-law to live amicably.
iii) On 15-10-2020, his daughter called and informed that the harassment continued and she was being forced to return to her parental home. He and his wife told her to wait until after Amavasya and assured her that they would conduct another panchayat.
iv) On 16-10-2020 around 6:00 AM, his paternal uncle
Satyanarayana Reddy heard cries from her house. He rushed there and found that Sahithi had committed suicide by hanging from a ceiling fan with her chunni. He informed the complainant, who reached the spot and confirmed her death.
v) When questioned, Gopal Reddy said they all slept in their rooms, and in the morning around 6 AM, he found her door closed and unresponsive. He called his son Kiran, and they opened the door and found her hanging.
vi) The complainant stated that due to continuous dowry harassment by her husband, in-laws, and brother-in-law, his daughter committed suicide. He requested legal action.
3. Based on the complaint, LW21/Madhusudhan Reddy, SI of Police and SHO of Alampur PS, registered a case in Cr.No.158/2020 under
Section 304-B IPC. He visited the scene of offence at Koneru Village, where he found the deceased's body lying on a cot and took photographs. LW21
Page No. 4 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022 then secured mediators PW13/Talari Venkatnaidu and PW14/Devarapogu
Narasimha. A panchanama was conducted, a rough sketch was drawn, and two items were seized one light blue plastic stool and One black silk chunni (used in the commission of the offence). Based on LW21’s requisition,
LW19/Madhu Mohan, Tahsildar, Alampur, conducted the inquest over the body of the deceased Smt. Jinkala Sahithi. He examined and recorded the statements of LW1 to LW5 and secured mediators LW15/Vadla
Maheshwaramma and LW16/Bichala Lakshmanna for the inquest proceedings.
4. Later, LW22/A. Yadagiri, SDPO, Gadwal, took up further investigation. He examined and recorded the statements of LW1/Bonthala
Prasada Reddy, LW2/Bonthala Padma, LW3/Pareddy Bhaskar Reddy,
LW4/Bonthala Narasimha Reddy, LW5/Bannur Arunamma, LW6/Bonthala
Satyanarayana Reddy, LW7/Kummari Bonthala Chinnaiah, LW8/Vadla
Veerabrahmam, LW9/Addakula Madileti, LW10/Ram Govinda Reddy,
LW11/Bonthala Chinna Narasimha Reddy and LW12/Bonthala
Tejeswaramma. He also collected the wedding card and marriage photographs of the deceased and A1.
5.On 21-10-2020 at 10:00 hrs, A1 to A4 voluntarily surrendered before the SDPO, Gadwal, and during interrogation, admitted their guilt.LW17/Dr. Narmada and LW18/Dr. Ravindranath Sastri conducted the postmortem and opined that the cause of death was "asphyxia due to hanging."Based on LW22’s requisition, LW20/V. Ushakranthi, JFCM,
Gadwal recorded the statements of LWs 1, 2, 5, 6, 10, and 11 under
Section 164 Cr.P.C.LW21 also retrieved videography of the statements of
LWs 1 to 12 from his cellphone, converted the same into a pen drive, and furnished it along with a certificate under Section 65-B(4)(c) of the Indian
Evidence Act as electronic evidence.After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed.Hence, the charge.
6. The case was taken on file by taking cognizance for the offence under sections304-B, 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Page No. 5 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022
Act on the file of the learned Judicial First Class Magistrate, Gadwal and on appearance of accused case copies furnished to them as contemplated under section 207 Cr.P.C., and as the alleged offence under section 304-B
IPC is exclusively triable by the court of Sessions as such committed the same to the District and Sessions Court, Mahabubnagar by following procedure under section 209 Cr.P.C., in-turn made over to this court for disposal in accordance with law.
7. On appearance of accused before this court and on hearing the learned Public Prosecutor on behalf of State and learned counsel for accused and on considering the material on record a charge U/Ss 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Acthas been framed, read over and explained to him in his known language for which hedenied the allegation, pleaded not guilty and claims to be tried.
8. To prove its case, the prosecution has examined LW1/Bonthala
Prasada Reddy complainant and father of the deceased as PW1,
LW2/Bonthala Padma mother of the deceased as PW2, LW5/Bannuru
Arunamma maternal aunt of the deceased as PW3, LW6/Bonthala
Satyanarayana Reddy relative of the deceased as PW4, LW9/Addakula
Maddileti circumstantial witness as PW5, LW10/Ram Govinda Reddy relative of the deceased as PW6, LW12/Bonthala Tejeswaramma relative of deceased as PW7, LW8/Vadla Veerabrahmam circumstantial witness as
PW8, LW14/Devarapogu Narasimha mediator for seizure of panchanama as PW9, LW15/Vadla Maheswaramma mediator for inquest as PW10,
LW18/Dr.Ravindranath Sastri conducted PME as PW11, LW19/Madhu
Mohan Tahsildar conducted inquest over the dead body as PW12,
LW22/A.Yadagairi, SDPO, Gadwal I.O., and filed charge sheet as PW13 and
LW21/Madhusudhan Reddy SI of Police, issued FIR and I.O. as PW14. In support of oral evidence Ex.P1 to 10 and MO1 to 3 are marked.
9. The learned Public Prosecutor has given up the witnessesLW3/Pareddy Bhaskar Reddy maternal uncle of the deceased,
LW4/Bonthala Narasimha Reddy relative of the deceased, LW7/Kumari
Page No. 6 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022
BonthalaChinmai sister of the deceased, LW13/Talari Venkatnaidu mediator for seizure, LW16/Bichala Lakshmanna inquestdar,
LW17/Dr.Narmada conducted PME, LW20/Smt.V.UshaKranthi, JFCM,
Gadwal recorded the 164 Cr.P.C., statements of LWs1, 2, 5, 6, 10 and 11.
Subsequently LW11/Bonthala Chinna Narasimha Reddy relative of deceased died and his evidence was closed.
10. After, the closure of the prosecution evidence, accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., for which he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution and pleaded his false implication and reported defence evidence.
11. To prove their defense, Accused No.1, JinkalaKiran Kumar Reddy, was examined as DW1. In support of his oral testimony, Ex.D1 and D2 were marked, and Material Objects MO1 to MO5 was exhibited.
12. Heard arguments from the learned Public Prosecutor and filed written arguments running its 6 pages.
13. Heard arguments from the learned counsel for the accused and relied upon a decision reported in Hon’ble Supreme Court of India Criminal
Appeal No.249/2013 between Shoor Singh and another vs. State of
Uttarakhand.
14. Now the point for consideration is:
“Whether the prosecution has proved its case against the accused No.1 to 4 for the charged offences beyond all reasonable doubt or not”?
15. POINT:
To bring home the guilt of the accused, the question is whether a case under Sections304-B, 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Acthas been made out by the prosecution.
16. In a criminal trial, the burden of proving every element necessary to establish the charge against the accused always rests on the prosecution.
Furthermore, there exists a presumption of innocence in favor of the accused until and unless the prosecution proves otherwise beyond a
Page No. 7 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022 reasonable doubt. It is imperative to underscore that criminality is not to be presumed, except in cases where statutory exceptions explicitly dictate otherwise.
17. Before dwelling into the evidence presented by the prosecution, it is prudent have a comprehensive understanding of the provision outlined
U/Ss 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition
Act.
Section 304-B IPC:-Dowry Death:-
Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.
Section 498-A IPC:-Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty:-
Whoever ever being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman, to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.
Section 34 IPC:- Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention:-
When a criminal act is done by several persons, in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act ion the same manner as if it were done by him alone.
Section 3 of Dowry Prohibition Act:-Penalty for giving or taking dowry:- If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than [(Note: Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, Sec.3) five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more::-
Section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act:- Penalty for demanding dowry:-
If any person demands, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to two years
Page No. 8 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022 and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees.
18. Upon reviewing the statutory provisions and adhering to the cardinal principles of criminal jurisprudence, it becomes imperative to scrutinize the evidence put-forth by the prosecution in this case.
19. The accused No.1 to 4 are suffering charges under sections 304-B, 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Sec.3 and 4 of dowry Prohibition act.
20. The undisputed facts are that PW1/Bonthala Prasada Reddy and
PW2/Bonthala Padmavathamma are the parents of the deceased/Jinkala
Sahithi and LW7/Chinmai. A1/Jinkala Kiran Kumar Reddy is the husband of the deceased. A2/Jinkala Gopal Reddy and A3/Jinkala Sarojamma are the parents of A1 and the in-laws of the deceased. A4/Jinkala Arun Kumar
Reddy is the brother of A1, son of A2 and A3, and brother-in-law of the deceased. PW3 Bannur Arunamma is the paternal aunt of the deceased;
PW4/B.Satyanarayana Reddy, PW6/Rama Govinda Reddy and
PW7/Bonthala Tejeswaramma are the relatives of the deceased.
PW5/Addakula Maddileti is said to be neighbor of the PW1 and 2.
21. The marriage of the deceased/Jinkala Sahithi was performed with
A1/Jinkala Kiran Kumar Reddy on 26-02-2016. They led a happy marital life for a period of two years and were also blessed with a male child, namely Charvik Reddy, who was 3½ years old by then. The accused and deceased family hails from Koneru village of Alampur Mandal. At the time of death the deceased was in the company of accused.
22. To constitute a 'dowry death', punishable under Section 304- BIPC, following ingredients must be satisfied:
i. death of a woman must have been caused by any burns or bodily injury or it must have occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances; ii. such death must have occurred within seven years of her marriage; iii. soon before such death, she must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband; and
Page No. 9 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022 iv. such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with any demand for dowry.
The phrase 'otherwise than under normal circumstances' is wide enough to encompass a suicidal death.
23. According to the prosecution, the deceased/Jinkala Sahithi committed suicide in the matrimonial home, i.e., in the house of the accused persons, on the intervening night of 15/16-10-2020 at Koneru village of Alampur
Mandal. There is no serious dispute with regard to the marriage of the deceased with A1 or the fact that she died within seven years of marriage due to an unnatural cause, namely suicide. The place of death was her mother-in-law’s home. Thus, the prosecution has established that the deceased/JinkalaSahithi died within seven years of her marriage and that her death was unnatural.
24. The third and fourth ingredients required to constitute an offence of dowry death are that, soon before such death, the deceased must have been subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband, and that such cruelty or harassment must be in connection with a demand for dowry. If, the prosecution could able to establish the said ingredients by producing cogent and acceptable evidence then presumption under section 113-B of the Evidence Act is to be raised against the accused that they have committed the offence of dowry death.
What is important is that the presumption under Section 113-B is not in respect of commission of an act of cruelty, or harassment, in connection with any demand for dowry, which is one of the essential ingredients of the offence of 'dowry death'. The presumption, however, is in respect of commission of the offence of 'dowry death' by the accused is rebuttable.
25. The deceased/Jinkala Sahithi committed suicide on the intervening night of 15/16-10-2020. Ex.P1 complaint was lodged by the father of the deceased, i.e., PW1, on 16-10-2020 at 8:00 AM. There is no delay in lodging the complaint.
Page No. 10 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022
26. The recitals of Ex.P1 are that on 26-02-2016, the parents of the deceased performed her marriage with A1. At the time of marriage, they gave 50 tolas of gold and a cash dowry of Rs.10,00,000/-. Later, further dowry was demanded, to which they agreed to fulfill after the marriage of their younger daughter, LW7/Kumari Bonthala Chinmai. The deceased led a happy marital life for two years and was blessed with a male child,
Charvik Reddy, aged 3½ years. Thereafter, A1 and A4 allegedly started harassing the deceased, demanding that Ac.10-00 of land be registered in
A1’s name. Unable to bear the harassment, the deceased informed her parents. Subsequently, a panchayat was convened by paternal
UncleB.Satyanarayana Reddy, paternal aunt Arunamma, and Cousins P.
Bhaskar Reddy and S. Rama Govinda Reddy, where it was decided to share properties equally between the daughters. A1 was advised to live amicably with the deceased. On 15-10-2020, in the morning, the deceased called her father and informed him that the accused were harassing her to get Ac.10- 00 of land registered in A1’s name and were forcing her to return to her parental home. Her father assured her that another panchayat would be held after the lunar day (Amavasya) and asked her to wait. However, on 16- 10-2020 at around 6:00 AM, A2 informed them about the deceased’s death due to suicide.
27. PW1/Bonthala Prasada Reddy, the father of the deceased, deposed regarding the contents of Ex.P1 and further stated that his daughter joined
A1 at Hyderabad and initially led a happy marital life. After about a year, when she was three months pregnant, A1 left for the United States on employment. PW1 then brought his daughter to his village for delivery.
28. PW1 further deposed that the deceased gave birth to a son. A1 later returned to India, and came to Koneru village to stay with his parents/A2 and A3, and then took his wife and son back to Hyderabad. They lived happily for about a year. Subsequently, A4, who was working in Bangalore as a software engineer, came to Hyderabad and started staying in A1’s house. A4 harassed the deceased, claiming she did not cook or manage
Page No. 11 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022 household chores properly. A4 instigated A1, who also began harassing the deceased. Eventually, A1 brought the deceased to Koneru village in 2020, dropped her at his home, and left, saying she was unable to mingle with the family.
29. PW1 further stated that after a month, he visited the house of the accused, located in the same village, and questioned A2 and A3 about why
A1 had left his daughter. They responded that she would be taken back after A4’s marriage. A4’s marriage was performed in May at Yaganti Temple,
Kurnool District, Andhra Pradesh. PW1 informed his relatives LW3 Pareddy
Bhaskar Reddy, LW4 Bonthala Narasimha Reddy, PW3 Bannur Arunamma,
PW4 Bonthala Satyanarayana Reddy, and PW6 Ram Govinda Reddy about the harassment. They went to the accused's house and advised them to take the deceased back. However, A1 to A4 continued to demand Ac.10-00 of land as additional dowry. On 15-10-2020 at 9:30 AM, the deceased informed her father of the continued demands. The next day, they learned of her death through Kalluri Venkatesh.
30. PW1 asserted that his daughter committed suicide due to persistent harassment by A1 to A4, who were demanding additional dowry in the form of Ac.10-00 of land.
31. PW2/Bonthala Padmavathamma, the mother of the deceased, deposed in line with PW1 and also deposed that her daughter committed suicide due to persistent harassment by A1 to A4 who were demanding
additional dowry in the form of Ac 10-00 of land.
32. PW3/Bannur Arunamma, sister of PW1 and paternal aunt of the deceased, also deposed similarly to PWs1 and 2. She added that, after some time, trivial issues arose between the deceased and A1, mainly related to household chores. A1 to A4 would quarrel with the deceased and sometimes use abusive language. She stated that A1 purchased a flat in
Kurnool town and scolded the deceased, alleging her parents did not provide financial support. A1 and A4 also approached the maternal
Page No. 12 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022 grandmother of the deceased to lease her land, which was refused, and on that account, the deceased was harassed.
33. PW3 further deposed that A1 approached their relative, Venkatram
Reddy, at Kurnool, expressing interest in marrying LW7/Chinmai, the younger sister of the deceased. All the accused continued to harass the deceased. A panchayat was held at the accused’s house with elders’ help, but their behavior did not change. During her stay, the accused treated the deceased harshly and forced her to do all household chores.
34. PW3 testimony is totally inconsistent with the testimony of PW1 and 2 with regard to cruelty or harassment towards the deceased by the accused during her matrimonial stay. However, PW3 is silent regarding any demand for additional dowry in the form of Ac.10-00 of land. Her version differs from that of PWs1 and 2.
35. PW4/Bonthala Satyanarayana Reddy, cousin of PW1, deposed similarly to PWs1 and 2. He added that A3 harassed the deceased, demanding Ac.10-00 of land from her parents and threatened that otherwise; another marriage would be performed for A1. A3 also compelled the deceased to do all household work.
36. PW5/Addakula Madileti, a neighbor of PWs1 and 2, deposed that
PW1 informed him about the harassment by the accused for agricultural land. The deceased was forced to return to her parents' home. Later, with elders' help, she was sent back to her matrimonial home, and soon after, her death occurred.
37. PW6/S. Rama Govinda Reddy, a relative of the deceased, deposed in line with PWs1 to 5. He added that the accused claimed the deceased was in the habit of spoiling A4's marriage alliances. A1 went to Venkatram
Reddy's house to propose marrying LW7/Chinmai, but the proposal was not accepted.
38. PW7/Smt. Bonthala Tejeswaramma, a relative of both the deceased
Page No. 13 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022 and the accused, deposed that three months before the deceased's death, the deceased visited her and complained of harassment by the accused for agricultural land. A panchayat was held, and it was agreed the property would be shared between the deceased and LW7/Chinmai. The deceased was then sent back to the accused’s house. A month later, her death was reported.
39. According to prosecution, PWs1 to 7 are said to be material witnesses to say as to how the deceased has been ill-treated by the accused during matrimonial home for want of additional dowry in the form of agriculture land. Therefore, their evidence has to be scrutinized with any amount of great care and caution with regard to cruelty or harassment towards the deceased soon before her death in connection with demand of additional dowry.
40. The defense of the accused is of total denial and that the deceased repeatedly interfered in A4’s marriage alliances for which a panchayat was convened, and elders admonished the deceased. Disturbed by this, she committed suicide. They claimed no dowry demand was ever made and that this allegation was invented after death of the deceased only to settle some scores. PWs1 to 7 have been tested by the accused in the lines of the defense.
41. PW1, during cross-examination, admitted that no issues arose between the deceased and A1 while living in Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. He acknowledged that they led a happy marital life and that he gave his daughter 50 tolas of gold as ornaments. He did not specify the dates or month, year the accused extended cruelty towards his daughter/deceased in connection with Ac 10-00 of land. PW1 did not file any proof to substantiate that at the time of marriage dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- was given to the accused, if so, to whom. Even Ex.P1 complaint does not recites that on demand by the accused dowry was given.
42. PW2, the deceased’s mother, admitted that the accused conducted a
Page No. 14 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022 panchayat in connection with A4’s cancelled marriage alliances. She acknowledged that 3 to 4 of A4's marriage alliances were cancelled and that the accused never demanded additional dowry. She confirmed that gold ornaments were given at the time of marriage and reiterated that the deceased led a happy marital life until her death. PW2 also did not state that on demand the dowry was given to the accused.
43. The admissions of PW2 suggest that the accused never harassed the deceased for additional dowry/dowry and that the deceased lived happily until her death. This casts doubt on the testimony of PW1 and PWs3 to 7 regarding dowry demands. PW2, being the mother of the deceased, is expected to have knowledge of any such harassment, yet denies it. PW6 one of the relative of the deceased also stated in cross-examination that the main issue was the deceased interfering in A4’s marriage alliances and confirmed that she rejoined A1 after A4’s marriage.
44. PW7, another relative, confirmed a panchayat was held due to the deceased spoiling A4’s marriage alliances, as she wanted her sister
Chinmai/LW7 to marry A4. Elders admonished her, and she accepted her fault. After A4’s marriage, the deceased rejoined A1 and led a happy life at
Koneru Village.
45. The prosecution projected multiple theories regarding cruelty or harassment. However, PW2 clearly stated that no dowry was demanded and that the deceased led a happy marital life until her death. The defense theorythat the deceased was emotionally disturbed after being admonished in a panchayat for interfering in A4 marriagehas gained weight. The prosecution case weakens due to inconsistent statements regarding dowry demands. Moreover, PWs1 to 7 who are material witnesses gave different version with regard to cruelty or harassment which is not in the lines of the contents of the Ex.P1 complaint. Added to that, the admission made by
PW6 and PW7 who are close relatives that the deceased was found fault during panchayat with regard to cancellation of marriage alliance of A4.
The tenor of cross-examination of PW1 to 7 goes to show that since the
Page No. 15 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022 deceased is very much interested the marriage of her sister LW7/Chinmai with A4 as the same was not materialized, the deceased being hyper sensitive has taken extreme step of committing suicide.
46. In this regard, the evidence of PW3 assumes very significant with regard to cruelty or harassment to the deceased during matrimonial stay at
Hyderabad. She deposed that whenever she along with her daughter
Ahalya used to visit at Hyderabad A1 house, found A1 and deceased leading happy marital life without any issues. He then admits the issue in the panchayat held by the elders with regard to cancellation of marriage of
A4 alliance at the instance of deceased. She further admits panchayat elders also asked the accused to forgiveness in case the deceased foul the marriage alliance of A4. She then admits that on one occasion the deceased happened to answer the phone call of one of the alliance from
Bethamcherla village and told that A3 is not good mother-in-law and for that reason the alliance of A4 from the said village have been cancelled.
47. PW1 father of the deceased has admitted that there are no differences in between the deceased and A1 while they were residing at
Sanathnagar, Hyderabad. He then deposed that after arrival of A4 from
Bangalore to Hyderabad the trouble started in between the deceased and
A1 in respect of not preparing food and attending house hold work. He further admits that he did not specifically mentioned in Ex.P1 complaint to whom gave cash of Rs.10,00,000/- and 50 tolas of gold. He then admits that 50 tolas of gold was given to daughter in the shape of ornaments.
48. The evidence of PWs1 to 3 does not pitch upon with regard to giving dowry and gold ornaments to the accused on their demand. Even, there is no proof that PWs1 and 2 gave dowry of Rs.10,00,000/- at the time of marriage to the accused. In the absence of any evidence, the only inference that can be drawn based on the admission made by PWs1 to 7 that there were trivial issues in between A1 and deceased and deceased has become instrumental in spoiling marriage alliance of A4 as he was interested in getting marriage with her own sister LW7/Chinmai. Thus, the prosecution
Page No. 16 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022 has suppressed the original facts which are otherwise as projected by the accused. The evidence of DW1/Jinkala Kiran Kumar Reddy (A1) coupled with MOs1 to 5 would suggest that deceased was always happy with her husband A1 during matrimonial stay. The evidence of PW3, 6 and 7 further goes to show that the deceased was found fault in the panchayat as she became instrumental behind cancellation of marriage alliance of A4.
Moreso, PWs1 and 2 who are parents and the deceased did not lodge any complaint against A1 or other accused before her death with regard to cruelty or harassment in connection with demand of dowry.
49. Then, there remains the evidence of PW8, Veerabrahmam, another villager of Koneru village, who has categorically deposed that about three years ago, on one occasion, there was a panchayat held at the house of the accused in connection with family disputes between the deceased and A1.
During the panchayat, A1 to A4 expressed that they would take back the deceased into their household after some time. This evidence also supports the claim of the accused that the issues were trivial in nature and not related to any demand for dowry. Therefore, the testimony of PW8, when taken into consideration, nullifies the testimonies of PWs1 to 7, effectively ruling out any demand for dowry.
50. PW9/Devarapogu Narasimha one of the mediator from Koneru
Village deposed that the police came to the house of the accused and conducted scene of offence panchanama and also seized MO1 blue color plastic stool and MO2 silk black color chunni under cover of panchanama
Ex.P6. This is not so seriously in dispute. Even, otherwise, the fact remains that the deceased has committed suicide at the house of accused.
51. PW10/Vadla Maheshwaramma one of the Villager of Koneru has deposed that inquest over the dead body was held at Govt. Hospital and opined that the deceased has committed suicide due to harassment made by the in-laws. Ex.P7 is the inquest report. Her evidence is also not so seriously disputed.
Page No. 17 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022
52. PW11/Dr.Ravindranath Sastri has deposed as to conducting of autopsy over the dead body and issuing of Ex.P8 PME report. Whose evidence is also not in dispute.
53. PW12/Dinne Madhan Mohan, Tahsildar has deposed that on 16-10- 2020 in the afternoon went to Government General Hospital, Kurnool and secured the dead body of the deceased and conducted inquest in the presence of panchayatdars PW10 and LW16/BichalaLaxmanna. Ex.P7 is the inquest report. Whose evidence is not in dispute.
54. PW13 and PW14 are the investigating officers who deposed as to the line of investigation filing of charge sheet. PW13 the investigating officer has admitted with regard to contradictions and omissions.
55. Even the evidence of PW10 to 14 are considered as it stands will not improve the case of the prosecution with regard to commission of dowry death.
56. A1/Jinkala Kiran Kumar Reddy examined as DW1 who denied about presentation of dowry and gold ornaments to him by the parents of the deceased and also with regard to cruelty or harassment towards the deceased in connection with demand of dowry. His evidence is that he led happy marital life with deceased/Jinkala Sahithi till her death. The learned Public Prosecutor has cross-examined the witness at length but nothing could be impeached in material particulars that he along with A2 to A4 has committed the offence of dowry death. MOs1 to 5 are photographs, receipts of medical bills, I-phone containing tour photos, function photos and bank statement showing as to howmutually he was with his wife the deceased during matrimonial life.
57. The learned counsel for the accused vehemently argued that the prosecution evidence does not specifies the 3rd ingredient that soon before the death of the deceased she has been subjected to cruelty or harassment in related to demand of additional dowry to substantiate the same has
Page No. 18 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022 relied upon a judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India arising out of
Criminal Appeal No.249 of 2013 between Shoor Singh and another v.
State of Uttarakhand, wherein it was held at para 18 as under:
In such circumstances, the death was most probably suicidal though this would not make a difference for commission of an offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC if all the other ingredients of dowry death stand proved. But, as noted above, mere harassment/ cruelty at the instance of the appellants in connection with any demand for dowry has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
58. It is not in dispute that the deceased, JinkalaSahithi, committed suicide in the house of the accused. However, the prosecution evidence suggests that the deceased was admonished by the elders in a panchayat for allegedly causing the cancellation of all the marriage alliances of A4.
This incident appears to have led to her humiliation. Furthermore, PW2, the mother of the deceased, categorically deposed that the accused never harassed the deceased with any demand for additional dowry at any point in time, and that the deceased led a happy marital life until her death.The evidence of DW1 is also corroborating that the deceased was happy with him till her death. Therefore, the prosecution evidence cannot be relied upon that soon before death the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment by the accused in connection with demand of dowry.
59. The inconsistency in the testimony of PWs1 to 7, who are material witnesses, goes to show that the deceased was not subjected to cruelty in connection with the demand for dowry, as contended by the accused. There is no reliable and trustworthy evidence on record to show that the accused has committed the offence of dowry death. In fact, the prosecution has presented two inconsistent views with regard to cruelty or harassment in connection with the demand for dowry, and the view which favors the accused must be accepted.
60. The entire prosecution evidence suffers with suspicion/doubt with regard to commission of dowry death. It is settled law that suspicion however grave and strong cannot substitute the place of legal proof.
Page No. 19 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022
Whenever, there is a doubt in the prosecution evidence then the benefit must go to the accused.
61. In view of the above discussion, this Court is not inclined to accept the prosecution evidence to base a conviction as it does not inspire any confidence in the court of mind that the accused has committed the offence of which they have been charged with.
62. Upon careful examination of the entire prosecution evidence, including the testimonies of PW1 to PW14, as well as Ex.P1 to P10 and
MO1 to MO3, this Court concludes that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt.
Consequently, the accused are entitled to the benefit of doubt and must be acquitted.
Point answered accordingly.
63. In the result, accused No.1 to 4 are found not guilty for the charged offences U/Ss.304-B, 498-A r/w 34 IPC and Section 3 and 4 of Dowry
Prohibition Act and they are acquitted under section 235 (1) Cr.P.C.
The bail bonds of the accused shall be stands discharged after expiry of appeal time.
MO1 and 2 shall be destroyed after expiry of appeal time. MO3 pen drive shall be returned to the prosecution.
MO1 to 5 shall be returned to accused No.1 after expiry of appeal time.
Typed to my dictation to the Stenographer Grade-I, corrected and
pronounced by me in the open court on this the 8th day of April, 2025.
Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal.
Page No. 20 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022
APPENDIX OF EVIDENCE
Witnesses Examined for
Prosecution:
PW1 B.Prasada Reddy, complainant and father of deceased PW2 B.Padma mother of the deceased PW3 Bannur Arunamma maternal aunt of the deceased PW4 B.Satyanarayana Reddy relative of deceased PW5 Addakula Maddileti circumstantial witness PW6 Ram Govinda Reddy relative of deceased PW7 Bonthala Tejeswaramma relative of deceased PW8 Vadla Veerabrahmam circumstantial witness PW9 Devarapogu Narasimha mediator for seizure PW10 Vadla Maheshwaramma mediator for inquest PW11 Dr.Ravindranath ySastry conducted PME PW12 Madhu Mohan, Tashildar conducted inquest PW13A.Yadagiri, SDPO, Gadwal IO and filed charge sheet PW14 S.Madhusudhan Reddy SI of Police issued FIR and I.O.
Defence:
DW1/A1 Jinkala Kiran Kumar Reddy
EXHIBITS MARKED FOR
Prosecution:
Ex.P1 is complaint given by PW1 Ex.P2 is (6) photos of dead body Ex.P3 are (10) wedding photos Ex.P4 is wedding card Ex.P5 is pen-drive Ex.P6 is crime details form Ex.P7 is inquest report Ex.P8 is PME report Ex.P9 is FIR Ex.P10 is 65-B certificate.
Defence:-
Ex.D1 and D2 are photos
MATERIAL OBJECTS MARKED FOR
Prosecution:
MO1 blue color stool MO2 black color chunni MO3 pen drive
Page No. 21 of total 21 Pages. Judgment in S.C. No. of 58 of 2022
Defence:
MO1 (9) photos MO2 (9) photos MO3 medical receipts and scanning reports and trip sheet MO4 I-Phone MO5 bank statements.
Prl. Dist. & Sessions Judge, Jogulamba Gadwal.